lengau

joined 9 months ago
[–] lengau@midwest.social 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (10 children)

You're very good at misrepresenting what people say. Are you saying that 2 genocides is not worse than 1 genocide?

[–] lengau@midwest.social 5 points 3 months ago (12 children)

Where on earth did you get that from my comment? If one genocide is bad, surely that same genocide (although arguably made more effective) plus an entirely separate, second genocide is worse?

[–] lengau@midwest.social 4 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Most liberals kinda hate anti-abortion single-issue voters though...

[–] lengau@midwest.social 6 points 3 months ago (15 children)

Well purely on the genocide topic... While both major parties appear to be okay with one genocide, only one of them appears to want to do their own genocides within the US.

[–] lengau@midwest.social 12 points 3 months ago (17 children)

So your options are three people who have absolutely no chance of getting even a single electoral college vote, let alone a majority. Or in other words, to potentially feed the spoiler effect.

Being a single issue voter doesn't make sense at the best of times, but when it means you're voting for someone who has no chance of winning and potentially helping an even worse candidate get into office, it's even worse. If we had ranked-choice voting on a nationwide count, it wouldn't be as bad (and would be fine if after you'd voted for those candidates on the one issue you actually weighed in between the major candidates), but that's sadly not the world in which we live.

Go ahead and vote third party if you're in a state like Alabama where there's no chance of a difference regardless. But in a swing state, third party votes can and do add up to lives lost.

[–] lengau@midwest.social 7 points 3 months ago

They've been pretty good about lvfs, though the updates tend to sit in testing for a long time.

[–] lengau@midwest.social 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I believe this is related to that, yeah.

I wonder how quickly Apple would come up with new bullshit if apps started providing an interstitial page with a breakdown.

Membership (goes to creator): $4.75
Patreon fee: $0.25
Fee for using iOS (goes to Apple): $1.50
--
Total: $6.50
[–] lengau@midwest.social 10 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Which is kinda ridiculous since Apple's practices are what Google does but worse.

[–] lengau@midwest.social 7 points 3 months ago (3 children)

On Android you can distribute your app through the Play Store without being forced to use Google's in-app purchases. For example: Patreon.

You're not wrong about Google Play, but Apple's behaviour is objectively worse.

[–] lengau@midwest.social 1 points 3 months ago
[–] lengau@midwest.social 5 points 3 months ago

Thanks. There are many reasons people might want the original YouTube link (e.g. privacy YT apps that intercept YouTube links but not invidious ones).

[–] lengau@midwest.social 10 points 3 months ago (2 children)
view more: ‹ prev next ›